NHL goaltenders have been improving, year-over-year, in nearly every season since the league started tracking save percentage. In the early 1980’s, an NHL team could expect to score 13 goals for every 100 shots it took; today, they can expect to score on less than nine.

Are bigger nets the answer?

League Average Save Percentage

The term “dead puck era” gets used a lot for that period in the mid-1990’s, but really it’s defined the Gary Bettman-run NHL. Bettman took over the league in February 1993; at the time the league-average save percentage was 0.885. It was up to 0.895 within one year, over 0.900 the next, and aside from a slight dip in 1995-96 it’s been going up ever since. In 2003-04, league-average save percentage hit a high at 0.911; it dropped following the lockout but matched that figure again in 2009-10 and has been that high or higher in every season since.

Larger Nets

Goal-scoring is a complex item that has to do with a lot of things – power play opportunities, the standard of officiating, coaching, player ability, player equipment and a host of other things. The 2005-06 dip was mostly a result of tightened officiating and increased power play opportunities, but either NHL teams have adapted or the standard has slipped because those power play opportunities have gone away and teams aren’t scoring more frequently at even-strength.

Larger nets address only one part of the problem, by making it easier to score once a player gets into shooting position. But addressing that one problem could help with the rest.

Part of the reason scoring has slipped is the prevalence of defensive systems. With modern goalies being so capable of stopping pucks, teams cannot consistently score their way out of trouble. What they can do is keep the other side from scoring, so my belief is that a low-scoring NHL is in some ways self-reinforcing; the rarer goals become, the more the emphasis is placed on preventing them.

Larger nets would allow teams to become more confident that getting shots will lead to getting goals, and should allow coaches to be more offence-focused – as well as placing more of a premium on guys who can score goals rather than guys who can prevent the other side from scoring goals.

Adaptation

The league adopted standardized nets (designed by Art Ross - he's the fellow on the far right in the front row, posing with the rest of the Kenora Thistles and the Stanley Cup) in the 1920’s, in the same season that forward passes were legalized in the neutral and defensive zones (but not the attacking zone). The NHL has fiddled with supports and the shape of the frame, but the basic dimensions of the net – 6’ by 4’ – haven’t changed since then.

What has changed is goaltenders, and goaltending equipment. Goalies are bigger than ever; goaltending equipment is both larger and weighs much less than it did in years past. Detroit Red Wings head coach Mike Babcock made this point recently as he voiced his support for larger nets:

If the goalies [are] getting bigger than the net is getting smaller. By refusing to change you are changing. Purists would say you can't do it because you're changing the game but by not changing you are changing the game.

Goaltending equipment has received lots of attention over the years, and rightly so, but for a 6’4” goaltender it doesn’t matter how form-fitting the equipment is – he’s going to take up a lot of room. Additionally, at some point cutting into goaltending equipment introduces injury risks – something that isn’t true with larger nets.

In general, I’m a traditionalist. But the game has changed in the slightly less than 90 years since forward passing was the league’s biggest hot-button rule issue, and changing the size of the net to help compensate for the tremendous increases in goaltender size, equipment and ability seems a logical step to take.

STREAKCRED

Sign up for StreakCred - the new playoff pool game from the Nation Network. For only $20 you can win solid prizes and a portion of the proceeds go to supporting the MS Bike Tour and the Edmonton Down Syndrome Society. Sign up here.

Recently around the Nation Network

There's a lot of good stuff up at Leafs Nation about the team's first round series agianst Boston. In his Post Game Recap, Cam Charron described some of the emotion of watching the club fall in seven games:

Sports break your heart. At some point each season, the championship aspirations of the teams we follow end one-by-one. It's like an Agatha Christie novel. In the meantime, we have things to cheer about. Things to swell us up with civic pride, the feeling of community, the visual and aesthetic appeal of watching our favourite athletes do things we could never do, and doing it for us, with the logo we've grown up cheering for on their chest, representing us.

Click on the link above to read more, or check out some recent pieces here at Oilers Nation:

Jonathan Willis is a freelance writer.
He currently works for Oilers Nation, Sportsnet, the Edmonton Journal and Bleacher Report.
He's co-written three books and worked for myriad websites, including Grantland, ESPN, The Score, and Hockey Prospectus. He was previously the founder and managing editor of Copper & Blue.

The current ice surface at Rexall is 85 x 200, but the existing ice surface capable area is atleast 90 x 210. All Northlands would have to do is remove one row of seats all the way around and move back the boards. The freezing beyond the boards is very apparent well beyond the existing boards. There's unmaintained frozen areas already under the first row of seats if you look underneath the retractable seats closest to the glass. A facility built back in 1975 already has it in place for a minor change such as this.

WHY ARE YOU ALWAYS BASHING THE NETS??? No wonder Oilers fans can't keep a good set of nets. Leave the nets alone!!! Sincerely, J.

But seriously, calling obstruction and interference would be job #1 prior to changing the nets. It may be anecdotal, but seems like coming out of the '05 lockout there were more scoring opportunities and goals when the players were not allowed to hold, hug and interfere.

This playoff reffing has been intolerable. I like hard hits as much as anyone but the refs are missing flat out tackles in the name of "lettin' them play". Go back to the tighter calls for obstruction and interference and see what happens.

This has been a huge issue for me for quite a while - thanks for bringing this up JW.
Just based on your stats, it is obvious that there is a problem that needs a solution.
Goals are steadily going down, which then causes each goal to be more important - so coaching is all around defense, play along the boards, keep the puck away from the middle and put it deep - all much more boring hockey than from the high scoring era. As well, because it is so hard to score 5X5, this makes PP so much more important, which makes games even more frustrating, when bad penalty calls decide the game.
Yes, sticks and players are better, but goal scoring is still way down, so that is what needs to be addressed.
How I miss the fact that the best wingers in the League, could occasionally score from the blueline, flying down the wing, such as Lafleur, Bossy, Kurri, Hull etc. Never happens now. As well breakaways presented a 25%-50% chance of scoring, way less now.
To me the solution is to find a way to increase scoring by 1/game per team and test net sizes for reach that.
I suspect, keeping proportion the same, that another 3 in. wide by 2 in. high, might do it.
You would not know that difference by looking at it from the stands, but that is all it might take.
All the goal-post shots, we have now, will not go in, because goalies will adjust to the new size, so doing that math is useless.
Finally more goals will change the game to more entertaining again, as possession becomes more important and getting a shot on net.
On other suggestions - I agree with 3 pts for win, ice size doesn't change scoring rate at all.
Just my thoughts

Isn't that the rule that the Oilers follow when it comes to forwards???

Fine. If we are just throwing out possible rule changes, here's mine-- every game should start with the shootout to determine the winner if the game is tied at the end of the third period. Imagine how hard teams would press if they knew that it was 3-3 in the last minute of the game and that they were guaranteed to lose if they didn't score... and then keep the nets the same size but increase the size of the ice surface. There. Snuck it in under the wire.

Unlike baseball, which has been remarkably stable and balanced for over a century (the only really significant change to conditions under which baseball is played that I can recall in my lifetime is when they lowered the height of the pitching mound), hockey has always been and is always evolving. And that's a good thing.

My opinion only, but increasing the size of the nets to compensate for bigger, better goaltenders who wear equipment that is sometimes cartoonishly-bulky - (I mean, have you seen Ryan Miller being interviewed after a game? His "torso" is so disproportionately large that he looks like the victim of an Amazon head-shrinker) - is long overdue.

You will never see the playing surfaces get significantly larger. The reason for this are many.

Finacial - fewer seats = less revenue

Practical - It is simply not practical to convert every arena in North America to accomodate an "International Ice surface"

Multi Use facilities - Many, if not most of the arena house a basketball team, which plays on a much smaller court than a hockey ice surface, building arenas that accomodate the international ice surface would negatively impact the game experience in these buildings for basketball.

Is making the nets bigger an ideal solution? Maybe not, but it is the best and safest solution. If it could turn the league from the current 2-1 / 3-2 league that it is now into a 4-3 or 5-4 league then the sport as a whole would benifit.

1-2" wider and 1 - 2" taller is a minute change that could pay huge dividends.

As to the arguement "why punish the goalies?" Leagues punish certain groups all the time. The NFL makes it harder to play defense every year, why? Safety and scoring. This is a solution for the NHL which will not impact safety negatively but will affect scoring positively. Though to be fair a friend of mine and I were discussing this very issue last week, so of course I am going to support an idea I was floating to him last week.

Sorry I tried to be brief, but it is an important subject.
Just read the SI article - very good, when Ken Dryden agrees, who is considered very cerebral and was a goalie - then this should be looked into.
Also for all traditionalists, it just doesn't make sense to maintain status quo, when the whole game is changed - nothing status quo about it.
Baseball has made changes and Football seems to make changes every year - to increase offence and has been successful - still is Football.

"The real tradition we need to protect is the fair contest between the shooter and the goalie. You want a balance where real skill gets rewarded, and if the balance gets out of whack, the traditions have already been broken. The real traditionalist looks for a situation where the shooter has a chance, and the goalie has a chance."

That isn't the case anymore. The stats JW present clearly show a dramatic shift in favour of the goalie.

"The real tradition we need to protect is the fair contest between the shooter and the goalie. You want a balance where real skill gets rewarded, and if the balance gets out of whack, the traditions have already been broken. The real traditionalist looks for a situation where the shooter has a chance, and the goalie has a chance."

That isn't the case anymore. The stats JW present clearly show a dramatic shift in favour of the goalie.

And if Luongo retires as a result, who gives a crap?

Canucks fans give a crap. I sure as hell think it would be a funny ending to an embarrassing saga.

I'm not sold on giving points in the standings for scoring a certain amount of goals in a game. The point of a hockey game should be to win, not to score a certain amount of goals. Every game I have ever played (cards, sports, board games) have different strategies based on whether it's win/lose or if there are shades of both within a result. I think awarding 3 points for a regulation win has a similar effect without changing the emphasis of the game completely.

Ken Dryden shows again his ability to think critically about the world. Smart cookie, that one.

In 1912 they went from 7 players to 6. Presumably the ice was too crowded or the quality of entertainment was too low.

Today's NHL players are too big for North American ice, and so the NHL should adjust by dropping from 5 skaters to 4. Games played on European-size ice can keep the current rules.

The league ought to love it...fewer salaries. Fans ought to love it...more open ice, bigger need for people that can actually skate and pass. And the ice will be in better shape. Hell, maybe you could drop one referee because there are fewer players on the ice.

NHLPA won't like it, but if most members get higher salaries (hey, revenue sharing amongst fewer guys!) they'll throw the guys who couldn't keep their jobs overboard.

Meanwhile, make the goalie use a regular stick, and reduce the size of his blocker and the cheater on his catching glove. ("Why is it called a cheater, Dad?")

"The real tradition we need to protect is the fair contest between the shooter and the goalie. You want a balance where real skill gets rewarded, and if the balance gets out of whack, the traditions have already been broken. The real traditionalist looks for a situation where the shooter has a chance, and the goalie has a chance."

That isn't the case anymore. The stats JW present clearly show a dramatic shift in favour of the goalie.

And if Luongo retires as a result, who gives a crap?

Goal posts in soccer and football; basketball hoops; cups in golf; bases in baseball...they aren't changed. Rules are changed, equipment evolves and is regulated...but the purity of the game is the end goal being the same across generations.

The reason goalies are bigger IMO is because they have over-sized equipment. They don't have to be as fast as they once did. They can play the odds and just cover the high percentage areas of the net because they can block so much of it.

Dubnyk is likely hooped if a change was made.

Defensive systems of course contribute, as does obstruction when they don't call it. By reducing the equipment size to safe and reasonable, players would be more likely to score from medium distance which would reduce the effect of better team play.

It might also reduce injuries to skaters if they had more area for high percentage scoring chances.

It definitely would make the games better to watch there being more offense. Nothing more boring than 5 collapsing to the front of the net. I miss the athletic goalies of the past.

Canucks fans give a crap. I sure as hell think it would be a funny ending to an embarrassing saga.

I'm not sold on giving points in the standings for scoring a certain amount of goals in a game. The point of a hockey game should be to win, not to score a certain amount of goals. Every game I have ever played (cards, sports, board games) have different strategies based on whether it's win/lose or if there are shades of both within a result. I think awarding 3 points for a regulation win has a similar effect without changing the emphasis of the game completely.

Ken Dryden shows again his ability to think critically about the world. Smart cookie, that one.

The basis of this article is how to stop the increase in ave save percentage and the only way to do that is by scoring more goals. Taking away some of the goalie advantages(cheater on catching glove for eg) will help but I think you need to give incentives to teams to try to score more goals and win 5-3 or 4-2 rather than getting a goal and trying to hold on to win 1-0.

Increasing the height and width of the net is the only logical solution. Expanding the ice surface to increase scoring should not even be discussed since North American arenas are built for the current ice size and owners would not take away potential income to increase scoring by 1 goal a game. Hockey in north america is a business and must market it self as such, a fast paced game. The 2-1 defensive games are sometimes great but most are boring if watching on TV and if the NHL wants to increase viewership it must allow for more scoring which makes the game more exciting. Increasing the size of the net by a few inches would not even be noticable and is less of a gimmick than the current trapezoid and shoot out.

You've obviously never been hit at full speed, champ. Dust em off, strap em on and see what happens.

Betcha' you'll never say that again from your couch!

212, I dont deny the goalies the depth of padding for body protection, I am suggesting in terms of the width of the pads...which are much wider than the shoulder blades...and the extended parts are there to just cover up the open goal and do not front any body parts.

PS. I've never had liking for wearing goalie pads, will take a pass. Thanks.

In 1912 they went from 7 players to 6. Presumably the ice was too crowded or the quality of entertainment was too low.

Today's NHL players are too big for North American ice, and so the NHL should adjust by dropping from 5 skaters to 4. Games played on European-size ice can keep the current rules.

The league ought to love it...fewer salaries. Fans ought to love it...more open ice, bigger need for people that can actually skate and pass. And the ice will be in better shape. Hell, maybe you could drop one referee because there are fewer players on the ice.

NHLPA won't like it, but if most members get higher salaries (hey, revenue sharing amongst fewer guys!) they'll throw the guys who couldn't keep their jobs overboard.

Meanwhile, make the goalie use a regular stick, and reduce the size of his blocker and the cheater on his catching glove. ("Why is it called a cheater, Dad?")

Three words addressing 4 on 4:

NEVER NEVER EVER

It would be a much more entertaining game, to be sure.

But if you think the NHLPA will voluntarily give up 20% of it's jobs, I am afraid you are dreaming in technicolor.

You obviously didn't bother to look at the article. It's a report from when Luongo said he'd retire if the nets were made bigger.

so #$%& you, and take your garbage elsewhere.

You welcome.

I did look at the article, ok. I don't care for or like the Canucks. I do not care or give a flying #@$% about Loungo, his opinion or his status in the NHL.

Do you work for the Canucks? I didn't know me disliking them was a direct insult at you or a justification for you to insult me. I won't argue or disrespect you, but I will be left to wonder what kind of piss poor parenting raises a man to act like a sensitive female.

I'm a traditionalist but the game has changed .Watch a game form the 70's or 80's players had net to shoot at.Goals were scored off the wing with good shots. Messier used to beat goalies with a hard wrist shot on his off wing.

Today the best way for teams to score is crowd the net and hope for a screen or a rebound.To me that is boring as hell.Bring the skill back give the shooter some twine to see.

I'm with Dryden on this and if you have never read his book the game give it a go you won't be disappointed.

Are you implying that the NHL isn't attempting to improve their product? That isn't fair, the league brass (along with help from Mike Gillis and A.V.) have been pulling out the stops in trying to get Luongo to retire - just like he promised in the article.

Nets don't have to be any wider, the back door play still works wonderfully well, but make the nets a full 6 inches taller and that gets the goalies standing up. One or two inches taller will not be good enough.

Nets don't have to be any wider, the back door play still works wonderfully well, but make the nets a full 6 inches taller and that gets the goalies standing up. One or two inches taller will not be good enough.

With six inches taller my concern is shots to the head and throat area.I think four inches taller and four inches wider would be safer.

Great job JW. I truly don't get the fear about this. As Dryden says, this game is based on a fair competition between shooters and goalies and that competition is out of balance. by NOT changing anything you are in fact changing everything. We're viewed as radicalists but in fact we're he ones who want to stick with tradition...the tradition of a balanced match between offence and defence. At this point a good 80% of goals are scored via some sort of screen, bounce, deflection or rebound.

As in the NFL there should be a competition committee who meets every offseason with the express purpose of keeping scoring in a certain optimal range. The debate can be what that range is...is it 8 goals a game? 7? 9?

So once they decide what that number is everything is on the table as far a changes go until they reach this optimal level. If equipment size, obstruction penalties and ice size don't work then the more radical changes are looked at. Getting to 8 goals per game is non-negotiable. Maybe the next step is larger nets and if you have to you go to 4 on 4.

Sure this is a difficult thing to consider because the changes needed are so huge but once they are implemented it would be tiny, tiny tweaks every year or two. Stop and think before you answer this question...

Do you really think you'd even notice nets that are a few inches higher and wider after about 2 months?

A few of the posters are correct about the long term impact of larger nets. Tiny increases in net size may have beautiful and meaningful effects on the game.

-will taller nets keep goalies on their feet. If so, making a save becomes an action rather than the result of perfect positioning and technique.
-since goaltending will now require movement coaches will be forced to change the culture of defensemen playing goalie. Too much net is unprotected and if a goalie can't see the puck they can't move to stop it. Shot blocking will be early (at point of shot) or not at all.
-larger nets means more clean goals are scored and more clean goals means the hiring of more players who can score clean goals. In this world Linus Omark can find work and Lennert Petrell can't.

Great job JW. I truly don't get the fear about this. As Dryden says, this game is based on a fair competition between shooters and goalies and that competition is out of balance. by NOT changing anything you are in fact changing everything. We're viewed as radicalists but in fact we're he ones who want to stick with tradition...the tradition of a balanced match between offence and defence. At this point a good 80% of goals are scored via some sort of screen, bounce, deflection or rebound.

As in the NFL there should be a competition committee who meets every offseason with the express purpose of keeping scoring in a certain optimal range. The debate can be what that range is...is it 8 goals a game? 7? 9?

So once they decide what that number is everything is on the table as far a changes go until they reach this optimal level. If equipment size, obstruction penalties and ice size don't work then the more radical changes are looked at. Getting to 8 goals per game is non-negotiable. Maybe the next step is larger nets and if you have to you go to 4 on 4.

Sure this is a difficult thing to consider because the changes needed are so huge but once they are implemented it would be tiny, tiny tweaks every year or two. Stop and think before you answer this question...

Do you really think you'd even notice nets that are a few inches higher and wider after about 2 months?

A few of the posters are correct about the long term impact of larger nets. Tiny increases in net size may have beautiful and meaningful effects on the game.

-will taller nets keep goalies on their feet. If so, making a save becomes an action rather than the result of perfect positioning and technique.
-since goaltending will now require movement coaches will be forced to change the culture of defensemen playing goalie. Too much net is unprotected and if a goalie can't see the puck they can't move to stop it. Shot blocking will be early (at point of shot) or not at all.
-larger nets means more clean goals are scored and more clean goals means the hiring of more players who can score clean goals. In this world Linus Omark can find work and Lennert Petrell can't.

To all those who have mentioned contraction as a way to attack boring hockey, I salute you, the few the proud.

I used to think Euro ice size might add to the excitement of a game, changed my mind. A 1-0 game can be electric. It's scoring chances that provide much of the exciting aspect of hockey, if a goalie committs robbery on the SC, so be it, also exciting.

To all those who have mentioned contraction as a way to attack boring hockey, I salute you, the few the proud.

I used to think Euro ice size might add to the excitement of a game, changed my mind. A 1-0 game can be electric. It's scoring chances that provide much of the exciting aspect of hockey, if a goalie committs robbery on the SC, so be it, also exciting.

MORE TALENT PER TEAM. CONTRACTION.

Start with contraction, then tinker with other stuff.

I am a broken record on contraction, and will stay broken ;)

Run contraction by the NHLPA.Do you actually think they will go for it? Same with four on four.

I don't have the data handy, but I'd be very surprised if shots/scoring chances hadn't dropped over the years - particularly with expansion and the prevalence of defensive systems.

(Another point to keep in mind: we're probably only a few years away from another round of expansion, so scoring talent is going to be diluted further.)

I also doubt SV% has reached it's peak. We've seen single-year dips before, but the overall trend is up, up, up.

I determined the weight of each stone in a bed of pebbles and got an average weight of 145 grams, but this told me very little about the real nature of the pebbles.

Anyone who thought, on the basis of the findings, that he could pick up a pebble of 145 grams at the first try would be in for a serious disappointment. Indeed, it might well happen that however long he searched he would not finda single pebble weighing exactly 145 grams.

The statistical method shows the facts in the light of an ideal average but does not give us a picture of their empirical reality.

While reflecting an indisputable aspect of reality, it can falsify the actual truth in a most misleading way. This is particularly true of theories which are based on statistics. The distinctive thing about real facts, however, is their individuality.

There is too many weak and under-qualified individuals in the NHL at the moment.

Forget about bigger nets. A 5% Goalie pad reduction over the next 3 to 4 years for an overall 15% size reduction. Goalie pads are ridiculous these days from the shoulder pads to the cheaters on their gloves. Most goalies look like the Michelin man out there. I think this would add 15% in goal production. Goalies should look like Bill Randford out there.

I was referring to a longer term trend in the SEL save percentage average from 0.868 in 1984 to 0.917 in 2012-2013.

I get your point on the shorter term fluctuations from one league affecting the other, but the more significant variation seems a long term trend.

From Post# 25:
"Although I like the idea of larger ice I see your point and agree they are issues.

Is there a correlation (or inverse correlation) between the rink size (KHL, SEL, etc.) and save percentage?

Looking at rough Average SP for the SEL I get the following:

1984-1985: 0.868 1995-1996: 0.882 2004-2005: 0.903 2012-2013: 0.917

So it would seem to be a phenomena independent of ice size or league, but something globally changing with the game on an incremental basis (e.g. fitness, better player development/training, equipment, etc.)"

I'm a traditionalist but the game has changed .Watch a game form the 70's or 80's players had net to shoot at.Goals were scored off the wing with good shots. Messier used to beat goalies with a hard wrist shot on his off wing.

Today the best way for teams to score is crowd the net and hope for a screen or a rebound.To me that is boring as hell.Bring the skill back give the shooter some twine to see.

I'm with Dryden on this and if you have never read his book the game give it a go you won't be disappointed.

Spydyr that is well said, could not agree more.

Valid points.

It's a good discusion, constant improvement is not a bad thing.

The NFL is now in the process of widing it's feild because the players literally have out grown the original field.

Would it be so bad if:

The NHL put a moritorium on goalie equipment?

If you were to make the ice surface 89 in width and 202 feet long?

If you were to make the back end boards to the icing line 12 feet in length?

What if goalie nets were 5 feet from top to bottom and 7 feet from side to side?

To me you would see an increased flow to the game, maybe more end to end hockey and less trapping.

players would be able to use there shot again, you may even see a tic-tac-toe scoring play!